64bit version
-
From what I can tell. Most of you seem to have 32bit systems and are bitching because those of us who have 64bit systems what software designed for our systems.
You all throw tantrums like 4yo little girls. Some act like they are all knowing and above the rest of us. I have just sat back and laughed at most of your comments. You have superiority complexes.
Everyone has a right to request what they want with out being put down and belittled by a bunch of kiddies who think only of themselves and think they know it all.
Vivaldi asked for requests I made one and got a bunch of A-holes jump on the thread. In the beginning I should have just answered "Because some of us want it" I have no need to explain myself to a bunch of kids. My request was to the Vivaldi developers and really has nothing to do with you lot at all. You want to act like children fine, don't be Trolls on other peoples threads and start your little bitching sessions on them.
You sure know how to pick a nickname, I'll give you that.
(And with that, I'm out of this madness of a thread…)
-
For the record, on some software I can tell a difference. I haven't had enough time to see if I can on Vivaldi yet …
-
I often have a lot of tabs open at once, and Flash has a tendency to eat up RAM when opening a lot of YouTube tabs.
-
32 or 64 bits, there shouldn't be much different in the code, maybe in some memory handling part of the code and/or data alignment portion. Usually it is just a compiler switch to compile into 32 or 64 bits executable (along with the matching sets of libraries to link with).
For 64 bit windows running 32 bit code, it uses a emulator (WOW64) to handle the 32 bit apps, which in theory makes 32 bit apps marginally slower than native 64 bit apps and allows fewer threads. Having said that, most of the current generation CPUs does have hardware for supporting virtualization/emulation making the different in speed barely noticeable, especially for a browser app.
Knowing Vidaldi spawn off a separate thread of each tab, will make the reason of able to access larger memory to have a 64 bit version even less, unless ones opens crazy number of tabs that will hit the WOW64 emulator thread limit (~2K threads).
I guess for those digital obsessive individuals that wants all their apps having the same bit length, it doesn't matter if there are only very little technical advantages, they just wanted everything to be same, but for more practical individuals, many other new features are more important.
I do open up a lot of tabs but no where near the 2K limit, my experience of having many tabs seems to crash the browser quite often and I would like to see it more stable before seeing a 64 bit version. -
I often have a lot of tabs open at once, and Flash has a tendency to eat up RAM when opening a lot of YouTube tabs.
And that's a good reason to keep Flash 32bits, at least it will stop near 4GB. With 64bit it will eat all your RAM.
Also, Youtube now is using HTML5 by default.
-
32 or 64 bits, there shouldn't be much different in the code
Likely this is perfectly true on Linux, but not on Windows.
If was that easy we had 64bit browsers 11 years ago.
Instead MS kkept explorer 64 as a second choice, Firefox still doesn't have an official 64bit build and crome is close to it.
Even Opera x64 for windows arrived way later than the Linux cousin.
-
QFT It's not 2010 for gosh sakes. (When folks were stubbornly refusing to support 64-bit, like it's 2004!)
Even in 2005, 64-bit-enabled CPUs were common!
And by 2006, I would have expected 99 percent of new CPUs at that time to support 64-bit! (Even the cheap ones!)
-
QFT It's not 2010 for gosh sakes. (When folks were stubbornly refusing to support 64-bit, like it's 2004!)
Even in 2005, 64-bit-enabled CPUs were common!
And by 2006, I would have expected 99 percent of new CPUs at that time to support 64-bit! (Even the cheap ones!)
Over half of machines still in use are 32-bit. Hence, since 32-bit will run on both architectures, it makes sense to finish developing 32-bit in order to achieve the widest possible adoption. Later, 64-bit for Windows may be a sensible use of (VERY) limited resources.
-
Over half of machines still in use are 32-bit. Hence, since 32-bit will run on both architectures, it makes sense to finish developing 32-bit in order to achieve the widest possible adoption. Later, 64-bit for Windows may be a sensible use of (VERY) limited resources.
It was 2010 or 2011 when Adobe actually pulled the 64-bit Flash from the internet!
I was like, what the bleep?!And most the the 32-bit systems you're talking about are pre-Vista era.
The last 32-bit only AMD CPUs were socket 462. But, Intel was tricky, all of them should have been 64-bit enabled by 2005, but Intel, with post-Northwood Pentium 4s, is alleged to have disabled 64-bit on some with a laser cut, LOL.
-
To be sure, many are pre-Vista. But XP sp3 will run Vivaldi. And at my left elbow as we speak is a 32-bit laptop that was delivered with Vista on it, sitting under a 32-bit ThinkPad that came with Win7 pre-loaded, and to the left and behind me, a 32-bit tower delivered with Vista, too (it's clone, with the exact same processor and a motherboard which is one letter model number different and newer BIOS, is my wife's 64-bit Win7 tower). My old tower is running really well with Win7, as is the ThinkPad (now that I maxed out the RAM and put an SSD in it), while the oldest, crummiest laptop is flying, running Win10 TP 32-bit. EVERY properly licensed windows machine from Win7 forward is getting offered a free upgrade to Win10 when it is released, which will rejuvenate them due to its much smarter resource allocation.
So let's don't bury X86 architecture just yet. Though in its dotage, it still has several years of vibrant life ahead of it.
-
32-bit software will run on all Windows systems, be they 32 or 64-bit. 64-bit software will only run on 64-bit Windows systems. So if you're initially developing and releasing software for which you want the widest startup exposure and have finite resources, doesn't it make sense to work on the 32-bit design and get that off the ground first? And if a 64-bit version does get released at some point to take advantage of 64-bit computer architecture, how does that create problems for 32-bit users? I run a 64-bit system with both 32-bit and 64-bit software, and I'm happy with both. I'm trying to figure out why this thread has grown to 4 pages of debate and argument… :ohmy:
-
I have been using the 64 bit build of Opera since it has been available. (Does Chropera even have one?). But I also still have a 32 bit only machines around, so I'm glad that they will run Vivaldi.
The switch from 16 to 32 bit did go very fast due to the severe limitations of 16 bit (64 KB boundary). The last 16 bit Opera version was 3.62, if somebody still remembers it. But the transition from 32 to 64 bit is not a pressing issue yet.
Just my two cents.
-
The last 32-bit only AMD CPUs were socket 462. But, Intel was tricky, all of them should have been 64-bit enabled by 2005, but Intel, with post-Northwood Pentium 4s, is alleged to have disabled 64-bit on some with a laser cut, LOL.
As I said I use 64bits since the day 1, the day -1 given I started using xp64 when still was in beta, and even the theme engine was till not working.
That said, for most of the machines from 2004/2008, there is little pont not just using 64bit applications, but also the whole operating system, given they are usually equipped with 2/3GB of ram (often costly DDR), and slow HDDs according to the today standars.
Sa 64bit system, its bigger size, and memory consumption makes the machine definitely less agile, and the (often supposed) advantages of 64bit OS and apps are more than shadowed.
The same is applicabile to nowadays low end machines, even a 64bit capable netbook bought "yesterday" is way more pleasurable to use when the Windows is a 32 bit version.
So NO ONE is against x64 itself and a x64 Vivaldi build, but stop asking for the novelties just because are novelties or trendy, and try to understand the REAL advantages and disadvantages of both worlds.
Let the Vivaldi team focus to the features missing and the bugfix process, then we will appreciate to have an x64 build.
-
The last 32-bit only AMD CPUs were socket 462. But, Intel was tricky, all of them should have been 64-bit enabled by 2005, but Intel, with post-Northwood Pentium 4s, is alleged to have disabled 64-bit on some with a laser cut, LOL.
As I said I use 64bits since the day 1, the day -1 given I started using xp64 when still was in beta, and even the theme engine was till not working.
That said, for most of the machines from 2004/2008, there is little pont not just using 64bit applications, but also the whole operating system, given they are usually equipped with 2/3GB of ram (often costly DDR), and slow HDDs according to the today standars.
Sa 64bit system, its bigger size, and memory consumption makes the machine definitely less agile, and the (often supposed) advantages of 64bit OS and apps are more than shadowed.
The same is applicabile to nowadays low end machines, even a 64bit capable netbook bought "yesterday" is way more pleasurable to use when the Windows is a 32 bit version.
So NO ONE is against x64 itself and a x64 Vivaldi build, but stop asking for the novelties just because are novelties or trendy, and try to understand the REAL advantages and disadvantages of both worlds.
Let the Vivaldi team focus to the features missing and the bugfix process, then we will appreciate to have an x64 build.
Yes, you hit the spot.
There's only 1 big con that jumps out:
64-bit requires more RAM than 32-bit, for the same features.
–----
IIRC, sadly, 32-bit Vista, 7 and possibly 8x, uses more RAM than 64-bit XP!
-
There's only 1 big con that jumps out:
64-bit requires more RAM than 32-bit, for the same features.
TWO
More ram, bigger files, slower transfers between storage to memory, memory to storage, and possibly memory to memory.
In short a slower system in almost everything but number crunching (compression, multimedia encoding, possibly image manipulation and 3d rendering).
-
There's only 1 big con that jumps out:
64-bit requires more RAM than 32-bit, for the same features.
TWO
More ram, bigger files, slower transfers between storage to memory, memory to storage, and possibly memory to memory.
In short a slower system in almost everything but number crunching (compression, multimedia encoding, possibly image manipulation and 3d rendering).
Perhaps this helps explain why, when my wife and I were running systems that were essentially clones of each other, but hers was loaded with 64-bit Windows 7 and mine with 32-bit, mine always seemed faster and more trouble-free.
-
Original, better thread here that details some reasons why and other features that benefit from 64-bit… Why start, and why bump this new spam thread?
-
My real-life experience is that it is superior about 30% of the time. For instance, my image-processing program is better installed as 64-bit (I have the choice) but my word processor is not. My browsers are not (at least not visibly so). My bookkeeping program is. My internet phone programs are not. My search apps are not. My email programs are not. Etc., etc.
-
My real-life experience is that it is superior about 30% of the time. For instance, my image-processing program is better installed as 64-bit (I have the choice) but my word processor is not. My browsers are not (at least not visibly so). My bookkeeping program is. My internet phone programs are not. My search apps are not. My email programs are not. Etc., etc.
Your computers would have to be the same in every way. For example, you can't just say oh the hardware was the same in both machines. The software and the different drivers matter too. What background processes are running on both machines.
I have been running 64bit systems since the first Day XP64 came out. I have never run into issues. In the beginning (when XP 64 first came out) it was hard finding 64bit programs and drivers, but apart from that the OS ran well. I was running 32bit versions of XP and I has less issues with the 64bit mostly because viruses and such were all written for 32bit Operating systems. 64bit was more secure at the time. That is changing now of course. Then Vista came out and I got that. People bitched and moaned about that. The problem was never the OS it was hardware developers had not made drivers for the OS what was vastly different in code to XP. Then windows 7, yes I keep getting the latest from day 1. I laughed my ASS off at all the Vista haters who thought 7 was the bees knees. MY Got it was Vista 2.0. It has a face lift and some tuning up but it was Vista still re-bagged and called windows 7.
My point is I have been running 64bit systems for over 10 years now and had no issues with them. They have been rock solid and most of the time the only issues where the lack of 64bit drivers or software.
My other point in this thread is that like 16bit software, 32bit has just about run its course. I know a lot of people are still running Ancient software, and like the end of support for XP and Vista 32bit should also stop being written to make way for the future.
64bit has been around for so long now it really makes no sense to keep on with 32bit software. If we are going to do that maybe we should still be developing 16bit or 8 bit software? you would all be like hell no to that.You all go on about resources, but it's the 32bitters who are holding these companies back and costing resources when they should be focused on 64bit the software that is now the standard not the outdated.
-
32Bitters are still more than half the user population. Possibly for this reason, much of the software I install these days is still not even available in 64-bit.
And, oh yeah, it was not mere placebo effect that both ME and Vista were disasters. Win98, Win2k, and XP were all better than ME, and Win7 ran a TON better on all hardware than Vista (I know, I replaced Vista on all three machines I had that ran it, as soon as I was able. What a relief). This was no illusion. Likewise, I'm testing Win10 TP and it runs visibly better on my old crappy 32-bit laptop than Win7 - better resource management. As a result, my crappy old 32-bit laptop just added a few years to its life…